tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12657288.post114378351082357463..comments2024-01-07T06:59:04.212-05:00Comments on The Playgoer: "Corrie" in NY "this year"?Playgoerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02994724588504353485noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12657288.post-1143841725777139192006-03-31T16:48:00.000-05:002006-03-31T16:48:00.000-05:00I'm one who is uncomfortable with the term "censor...I'm one who is uncomfortable with the term "censorship," and I may have said so here. My sense of the word is that it involves the suppression of part or all of a work, and that it's exercised by some figure of authority, an official, an agent of the state or (in past times) the church. An example is James Joyce's <I>Ulysses</I>, which was banned by court action for more than a decade in the United States; no American publisher could present the book, nor could it be imported. The case of <I>Rachel Corrie</I> and NYTW seems different to me because no legal authority has ruled that the play can't be presented; what's more, I think it's valuable to remember that the kind of simple, absolute censorship I'm talking about still takes place in other countries--the traditional meaning is far from obselete. However, I recognize that in practice, a play we thought we were going to get to see in New York is for now beyond our reach. I can also see, as I know George Hunka has argued, that governmental authorities are not the only powerful forces at work in our country and that when these forces have effectively suppressed the play for now, perhaps the term censorship ought to be used. I can even see that there's no other simple term that we can use instead. Still, for my own purposes I hesitate to apply it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com